257,000 mi of Valvoline conventional 5k OCI (pics)
- Thread starter rustypigeon
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: bvance554
You make me want to change my oil twice as often as needed. Because now i'm worried about how my rings look.
Synthetics produce less deposits per mile. You put conventional dino oil in fresh, and the build-up is more than with a synthetic.
You make me want to change my oil twice as often as needed. Because now i'm worried about how my rings look.
Synthetics produce less deposits per mile. You put conventional dino oil in fresh, and the build-up is more than with a synthetic.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
If nothing else, the OP has shown that neither synthetic oil nor short drain intervals are required to keep an engine clean or to reduce wear.
Some of the posters above like to point to the very light varnish as a problem, but I can't see that it is.
Some of the posters above also like to bring up the rings, but we have no indication that the rings are stuck in this engine.
I suspect that regular use plays as great a role in keeping the rings free as does the oil used. With 257K in eleven years, this thing certainly sees regular use.
Any way you look at it, the OP has maintained this engine well and it has rewarded him with a quarter million miles of service and is still going strong.
++1
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The more time I spend here, the less convinced I become that synthetics offer any practical advantage in most applications.
+ 1/4
If nothing else, the OP has shown that neither synthetic oil nor short drain intervals are required to keep an engine clean or to reduce wear.
Some of the posters above like to point to the very light varnish as a problem, but I can't see that it is.
Some of the posters above also like to bring up the rings, but we have no indication that the rings are stuck in this engine.
I suspect that regular use plays as great a role in keeping the rings free as does the oil used. With 257K in eleven years, this thing certainly sees regular use.
Any way you look at it, the OP has maintained this engine well and it has rewarded him with a quarter million miles of service and is still going strong.
++1
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The more time I spend here, the less convinced I become that synthetics offer any practical advantage in most applications.
+ 1/4
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: dave1251
If you are going to make this statement. Please provide your information for this assessment. Helpful figures include additional cost of synthetic base stocks, the ROI to offset cost, and percentage of possible recovery of group III and higher base stocks vs group II.
I have no horse in this race, but I toyed with the whole cost of conventionals versus synthetics argument a while back to see what would work best for me. I have posted this information before but here is a compilation of my calculations with edits added based upon my experiences thus far (and yes, I buy my oil at WM because it hardly makes fiscal sense for me to pay more elsewhere for the same oil):
My 10K run of MS5K had a TBN of 1.4 and for sake of argument let us assume it would read 1.0 at 12K and the M1 will read 1.0 at 16K (EDIT: M1 actually read 2.4 at 15K indicating it could likely go to 18K--pushing the numbers even more). I typically purchase seven 5QT jugs at a time (enough for 5 OCs @ 7QTs each). So using the numbers at WM, here are my calculations:
$15.97 x 7 = $111.79 (7 jugs of MS5K)
$21.97 x 7 = $153.79 (7 jugs of M1) (EDIT: this was a rollback price)
A difference of $42 which sounds like a lot on the surface, but let us calculate a little further. When we apply the miles to the cost, it becomes thus:
12,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 60,000 miles at a cost of $111.79 or 0.001863167 per mile for 60K miles on MS5K
16,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 80,000 miles at a cost of $153.79 or 0.001922375 per mile for 80K miles on M1
If my math is correct, this equals a difference of 0.000059208 (effectively ZERO). The problem is that many do not run synthetics (or conventionals for that matter) long enough to zero out the life of the oil and therefore they waste oil and money. I have been totally guilty of this throughout the life of my FX4 (well, at least until recently), but alas, hopefully my waste is knowledge for someone else to stop the waste.
I want to keep this comparison as fair as possible, so I will remove the sale pricing and stick with regular pricing on both SuperTech and M1 (currently $12.97 for ST and $24.97 for M1) (EDIT: this was pricing from November 2013).
$12.97 x 7 = $90.79 (7 jugs of SuperTech)
$24.97 x 7 = $174.79 (7 jugs of M1)
A difference of $84
When we apply the miles to the cost, it becomes thus:
12,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 60,000 miles at a cost of $90.79 or $0.0015131667 per mile for 60K miles on SuperTech
16,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 80,000 miles at a cost of $174.79 or $0.002184875 per mile for 80K miles on M1
If my math is correct, this equals a difference of$0.0006717083 per mile to use synthetic versus conventional.
Now, provided a more expensive synthetic can be ran for more miles, then using a more expensive synthetic makes the gap even less (though one would assume just the opposite). Here is ST versus M1EP (currently $12.97 for ST and $26.97 for M1EP) (EDIT: M1EP is currently $25.17 so this gap closes even further):
$12.97 x 7 = $90.79 (7 jugs of SuperTech)
$26.97 x 7 = $188.79 (7 jugs of M1EP)
A difference of $98
When we apply the miles to the cost, it becomes thus:
12,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 60,000 miles at a cost of $90.79 or $0.0015131667 per mile for 60K miles on SuperTech
20,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 100,000 miles at a cost of $188.79 or $0.0018879 per mile for 100K miles on M1EP (I will assume that 20K is possible with M1EP) (EDIT: I will found soon enough; I know that regular M1 can go 15K with ease).
If my math is correct, this equals a difference of $0.0003747333 per mile to use synthetic versus conventional.
Does it cost more to run a synthetic over a conventional? if both oils are ran to zero life...mathematically it seems that it is a wash. IF the oil is NOT used to zero life (i.e. both dumped at 8K) then the conventional is the clear winner in the cost contest. Of course, synthetics are frequently on sale at WM whereas conventionals are less frequently placed on sale and this pushes the margins even further.
I also compared synthetic costs (M1, M1EP, and SSO) (EDIT: pricing at WM has both M1 and M1EP at the same price [$25.17] so these numbers are off, but you get the general idea)
Oil Costs:
M1 = $4.39/QT x 7 = $30.73 (bought in 5QT jugs @ WM)
M1EP = $5.39/QT x 7 = $37.73 (bought in 5QT jugs @ WM)
SSO = $6.90/QT x 7 = $48.33 (bought in 4QT jugs @ Amsoil PC)
Filter Costs:
MC FL-820s = $2.30 (AAP + code)
Fram Ultra = $7.53 (AAP + code)
Amsoil EO = $13.15 (Amsoil PC)
When we apply the miles to the cost, it becomes thus:
$0.002202 per mile @ 15,000 miles per OC at a cost of $33.03 (M1 + MC)
$0.002355 per mile @ 15,000 miles per OC at a cost of $35.33 (M1 + 2 MCs)
$0.002551 per mile @ 15,000 miles per OC at a cost of $38.26 (M1 + FU)
$0.002117 per mile @ 20,000 miles per OC at a cost of $42.33 (M1EP + 2 MCs)
$0.002263 per mile @ 20,000 miles per OC at a cost of $45.26 (M1EP + FU)
$0.002647 per mile @ 20,000 miles per OC at a cost of $52.93 (SSO + 2 MCs)
$0.002793 per mile @ 20,000 miles per OC at a cost of $55.86 (SSO + FU)
$0.002117 per mile @ 25,000 miles per OC at a cost of $52.93 (SSO+ 2 MCs)
$0.002459 per mile @ 25,000 miles per OC at a cost of $61.48 (SSO + EO)
My conclusion was a simple one based upon cost analysis and the UOA performance which is why all of the MS5K in my stash was replaced with M1AFE and M1EP. For me, there is zero incentive to run a conventional oil. Am I saying that synthetics are better than conventionals (blah, blah, blah)? No, but (for me) it is easy to see why I chose synthetics.
If you are going to make this statement. Please provide your information for this assessment. Helpful figures include additional cost of synthetic base stocks, the ROI to offset cost, and percentage of possible recovery of group III and higher base stocks vs group II.
I have no horse in this race, but I toyed with the whole cost of conventionals versus synthetics argument a while back to see what would work best for me. I have posted this information before but here is a compilation of my calculations with edits added based upon my experiences thus far (and yes, I buy my oil at WM because it hardly makes fiscal sense for me to pay more elsewhere for the same oil):
My 10K run of MS5K had a TBN of 1.4 and for sake of argument let us assume it would read 1.0 at 12K and the M1 will read 1.0 at 16K (EDIT: M1 actually read 2.4 at 15K indicating it could likely go to 18K--pushing the numbers even more). I typically purchase seven 5QT jugs at a time (enough for 5 OCs @ 7QTs each). So using the numbers at WM, here are my calculations:
$15.97 x 7 = $111.79 (7 jugs of MS5K)
$21.97 x 7 = $153.79 (7 jugs of M1) (EDIT: this was a rollback price)
A difference of $42 which sounds like a lot on the surface, but let us calculate a little further. When we apply the miles to the cost, it becomes thus:
12,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 60,000 miles at a cost of $111.79 or 0.001863167 per mile for 60K miles on MS5K
16,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 80,000 miles at a cost of $153.79 or 0.001922375 per mile for 80K miles on M1
If my math is correct, this equals a difference of 0.000059208 (effectively ZERO). The problem is that many do not run synthetics (or conventionals for that matter) long enough to zero out the life of the oil and therefore they waste oil and money. I have been totally guilty of this throughout the life of my FX4 (well, at least until recently), but alas, hopefully my waste is knowledge for someone else to stop the waste.
I want to keep this comparison as fair as possible, so I will remove the sale pricing and stick with regular pricing on both SuperTech and M1 (currently $12.97 for ST and $24.97 for M1) (EDIT: this was pricing from November 2013).
$12.97 x 7 = $90.79 (7 jugs of SuperTech)
$24.97 x 7 = $174.79 (7 jugs of M1)
A difference of $84
When we apply the miles to the cost, it becomes thus:
12,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 60,000 miles at a cost of $90.79 or $0.0015131667 per mile for 60K miles on SuperTech
16,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 80,000 miles at a cost of $174.79 or $0.002184875 per mile for 80K miles on M1
If my math is correct, this equals a difference of$0.0006717083 per mile to use synthetic versus conventional.
Now, provided a more expensive synthetic can be ran for more miles, then using a more expensive synthetic makes the gap even less (though one would assume just the opposite). Here is ST versus M1EP (currently $12.97 for ST and $26.97 for M1EP) (EDIT: M1EP is currently $25.17 so this gap closes even further):
$12.97 x 7 = $90.79 (7 jugs of SuperTech)
$26.97 x 7 = $188.79 (7 jugs of M1EP)
A difference of $98
When we apply the miles to the cost, it becomes thus:
12,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 60,000 miles at a cost of $90.79 or $0.0015131667 per mile for 60K miles on SuperTech
20,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 100,000 miles at a cost of $188.79 or $0.0018879 per mile for 100K miles on M1EP (I will assume that 20K is possible with M1EP) (EDIT: I will found soon enough; I know that regular M1 can go 15K with ease).
If my math is correct, this equals a difference of $0.0003747333 per mile to use synthetic versus conventional.
Does it cost more to run a synthetic over a conventional? if both oils are ran to zero life...mathematically it seems that it is a wash. IF the oil is NOT used to zero life (i.e. both dumped at 8K) then the conventional is the clear winner in the cost contest. Of course, synthetics are frequently on sale at WM whereas conventionals are less frequently placed on sale and this pushes the margins even further.
I also compared synthetic costs (M1, M1EP, and SSO) (EDIT: pricing at WM has both M1 and M1EP at the same price [$25.17] so these numbers are off, but you get the general idea)
Oil Costs:
M1 = $4.39/QT x 7 = $30.73 (bought in 5QT jugs @ WM)
M1EP = $5.39/QT x 7 = $37.73 (bought in 5QT jugs @ WM)
SSO = $6.90/QT x 7 = $48.33 (bought in 4QT jugs @ Amsoil PC)
Filter Costs:
MC FL-820s = $2.30 (AAP + code)
Fram Ultra = $7.53 (AAP + code)
Amsoil EO = $13.15 (Amsoil PC)
When we apply the miles to the cost, it becomes thus:
$0.002202 per mile @ 15,000 miles per OC at a cost of $33.03 (M1 + MC)
$0.002355 per mile @ 15,000 miles per OC at a cost of $35.33 (M1 + 2 MCs)
$0.002551 per mile @ 15,000 miles per OC at a cost of $38.26 (M1 + FU)
$0.002117 per mile @ 20,000 miles per OC at a cost of $42.33 (M1EP + 2 MCs)
$0.002263 per mile @ 20,000 miles per OC at a cost of $45.26 (M1EP + FU)
$0.002647 per mile @ 20,000 miles per OC at a cost of $52.93 (SSO + 2 MCs)
$0.002793 per mile @ 20,000 miles per OC at a cost of $55.86 (SSO + FU)
$0.002117 per mile @ 25,000 miles per OC at a cost of $52.93 (SSO+ 2 MCs)
$0.002459 per mile @ 25,000 miles per OC at a cost of $61.48 (SSO + EO)
My conclusion was a simple one based upon cost analysis and the UOA performance which is why all of the MS5K in my stash was replaced with M1AFE and M1EP. For me, there is zero incentive to run a conventional oil. Am I saying that synthetics are better than conventionals (blah, blah, blah)? No, but (for me) it is easy to see why I chose synthetics.
I've been using PP as they have had the most rebates in the last two years. Synthetic for less than dino price at WallyWorld. Filters bought cheaply from deals or RockAuto/etc, also. Less than $10 total per OC.
Why run dino when I can run syn for less? I've never owned a car with less than 80k miles, so I have no idea on how clean/dirty my regime has kept my internals. Whatever works, though.
Why run dino when I can run syn for less? I've never owned a car with less than 80k miles, so I have no idea on how clean/dirty my regime has kept my internals. Whatever works, though.
Syn makes the most sense if it is run to extended intervals IMO. We are so awash in 5k-7k Mobil 1 UOA's on the UOA forum it is clear most people don't do that, even BITOG'ers.
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: bvance554
You make me want to change my oil twice as often as needed. Because now i'm worried about how my rings look.
Synthetics produce less deposits per mile. You put conventional dino oil in fresh, and the build-up is more than with a synthetic.
Farfetched might be a more appropriate user name for you.
Originally Posted By: bvance554
You make me want to change my oil twice as often as needed. Because now i'm worried about how my rings look.
Synthetics produce less deposits per mile. You put conventional dino oil in fresh, and the build-up is more than with a synthetic.
Farfetched might be a more appropriate user name for you.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
What I always notice is that engines run on dino will be more varnished,but engines run on synth will be more scarred/marked on the camshafts.
Looks fine to me for an engine with that many miles. Keep doing what your doing its obviously working okay.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
If the biggest complaint you can give about someone's accomplishment is slight varnish in a engine that is over a decade old and approaching 300K miles. Then I believe you have way too much time on your hands. Let us see how your engine looks like with your 10K synthetic OCI's at 250K miles please.
Here you go, 280K miles on a more than 2 decades old car, using 5K OCI with nothing but syn.
Cost of using syn vs. dino? Who cares? With FAR syn oil and the near parity of dino and syn costs, it's irrelevant.
If the biggest complaint you can give about someone's accomplishment is slight varnish in a engine that is over a decade old and approaching 300K miles. Then I believe you have way too much time on your hands. Let us see how your engine looks like with your 10K synthetic OCI's at 250K miles please.
Here you go, 280K miles on a more than 2 decades old car, using 5K OCI with nothing but syn.
Cost of using syn vs. dino? Who cares? With FAR syn oil and the near parity of dino and syn costs, it's irrelevant.
Running syn at 5K intervals is a waste, regardless of cost.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,327
I disagree with this sentence. Anyone wanting an 0W-XX is forced to pony up for synthetic. If you know of conventional 0W-30/40 I'm all ears.
Originally Posted By: Quest
modern engine oil protects just as good as those so-called "full-syn" oil in a utilitarian, mass-produced gasoline IC engines. "full-syn" only makes your wallet lighter...
Originally Posted By: Quest
modern engine oil protects just as good as those so-called "full-syn" oil in a utilitarian, mass-produced gasoline IC engines. "full-syn" only makes your wallet lighter...
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
I disagree with this sentence. Anyone wanting an 0W-XX is forced to pony up for synthetic. If you know of conventional 0W-30/40 I'm all ears.
Originally Posted By: Quest
modern engine oil protects just as good as those so-called "full-syn" oil in a utilitarian, mass-produced gasoline IC engines. "full-syn" only makes your wallet lighter...
I would too IF the synthetic oil is used for the length of its intended life. A better statement would be something like "using any oil for less than its intended life only makes your wallet lighter..." There are too many examples of how using a synthetic as it was intended costs no more than a "modern engine oil" which I assume to be a reference to a conventional oil.
I disagree with this sentence. Anyone wanting an 0W-XX is forced to pony up for synthetic. If you know of conventional 0W-30/40 I'm all ears.
Originally Posted By: Quest
modern engine oil protects just as good as those so-called "full-syn" oil in a utilitarian, mass-produced gasoline IC engines. "full-syn" only makes your wallet lighter...
I would too IF the synthetic oil is used for the length of its intended life. A better statement would be something like "using any oil for less than its intended life only makes your wallet lighter..." There are too many examples of how using a synthetic as it was intended costs no more than a "modern engine oil" which I assume to be a reference to a conventional oil.
Dino oil is dinosaur old technology period! It's just not in the same class a quality Syn period!
Originally Posted By: Nayov
Originally Posted By: dave1251
If the biggest complaint you can give about someone's accomplishment is slight varnish in a engine that is over a decade old and approaching 300K miles. Then I believe you have way too much time on your hands. Let us see how your engine looks like with your 10K synthetic OCI's at 250K miles please.
Here you go, 280K miles on a more than 2 decades old car, using 5K OCI with nothing but syn.
Cost of using syn vs. dino? Who cares? With FAR syn oil and the near parity of dino and syn costs, it's irrelevant.
Wow! This is not what I asked for.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
If the biggest complaint you can give about someone's accomplishment is slight varnish in a engine that is over a decade old and approaching 300K miles. Then I believe you have way too much time on your hands. Let us see how your engine looks like with your 10K synthetic OCI's at 250K miles please.
Here you go, 280K miles on a more than 2 decades old car, using 5K OCI with nothing but syn.
Cost of using syn vs. dino? Who cares? With FAR syn oil and the near parity of dino and syn costs, it's irrelevant.
Wow! This is not what I asked for.
Originally Posted By: RISUPERCREWMAN
Dino oil is dinosaur old technology period! It's just not in the same class a quality Syn period!
Quite the contrary, IMO. Conventional lubricant technology has vastly improved in the last decade.
Dino oil is dinosaur old technology period! It's just not in the same class a quality Syn period!
Quite the contrary, IMO. Conventional lubricant technology has vastly improved in the last decade.
The argument that a 10K OCI with a syn would have produced a superior result is simply an unproven assumption for a number of reasons:
1. The varnish level that we are seeing is a non-issue to the longevity of the motor whether its there or not. Its like saying PU will make an engine last 25% longer than M1 because it will keep it 25% cleaner.
2. We don't know that this engine would have less varnish with 10K OCI than a conventional with 5K intervals. Engines can stay clean with conventionals and can sludge with synthetics depending on the application (ask BMW). Making broad-based generalizations are pointless. It may be accurate to say that a synthetic will keep an engine cleaner longer--but how much longer and what brand conventional and what brand synthetic are being compared, and in what application?
3. Of more concern than minor varnish is engine wear. Sythentics may keep an engine cleaner but with 10K intervals the contaminants are usually higher and the risk for wear from contaminants substantiallly increases. Some contaminants can only be removed with an OC. A 5k OCI significantly minimizes that risk. I would venture to say that in naturally aspirated engines, driven in normal conditions, in a temperate climate zone (where the majority of vehicles are driven) a good dino with a 5K OCI interval will stand a better chance of protecting most engines better than a 10k OCI with synthetics based on the contaminant levels between the two OCIs. Who cares about a little varnish that can be easily cleaned up ... I care more about wear metals from contaminants that cannot be reinstalled on engine components.
Sometimes sqeaky clean means just squeaky clean with contaminant abrasion!
1. The varnish level that we are seeing is a non-issue to the longevity of the motor whether its there or not. Its like saying PU will make an engine last 25% longer than M1 because it will keep it 25% cleaner.
2. We don't know that this engine would have less varnish with 10K OCI than a conventional with 5K intervals. Engines can stay clean with conventionals and can sludge with synthetics depending on the application (ask BMW). Making broad-based generalizations are pointless. It may be accurate to say that a synthetic will keep an engine cleaner longer--but how much longer and what brand conventional and what brand synthetic are being compared, and in what application?
3. Of more concern than minor varnish is engine wear. Sythentics may keep an engine cleaner but with 10K intervals the contaminants are usually higher and the risk for wear from contaminants substantiallly increases. Some contaminants can only be removed with an OC. A 5k OCI significantly minimizes that risk. I would venture to say that in naturally aspirated engines, driven in normal conditions, in a temperate climate zone (where the majority of vehicles are driven) a good dino with a 5K OCI interval will stand a better chance of protecting most engines better than a 10k OCI with synthetics based on the contaminant levels between the two OCIs. Who cares about a little varnish that can be easily cleaned up ... I care more about wear metals from contaminants that cannot be reinstalled on engine components.
Sometimes sqeaky clean means just squeaky clean with contaminant abrasion!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: Nayov
Originally Posted By: dave1251
If the biggest complaint you can give about someone's accomplishment is slight varnish in a engine that is over a decade old and approaching 300K miles. Then I believe you have way too much time on your hands. Let us see how your engine looks like with your 10K synthetic OCI's at 250K miles please.
Here you go, 280K miles on a more than 2 decades old car, using 5K OCI with nothing but syn.
Cost of using syn vs. dino? Who cares? With FAR syn oil and the near parity of dino and syn costs, it's irrelevant.
Looks NICE!! What kind`ve car/oil/filter?
Originally Posted By: dave1251
If the biggest complaint you can give about someone's accomplishment is slight varnish in a engine that is over a decade old and approaching 300K miles. Then I believe you have way too much time on your hands. Let us see how your engine looks like with your 10K synthetic OCI's at 250K miles please.
Here you go, 280K miles on a more than 2 decades old car, using 5K OCI with nothing but syn.
Cost of using syn vs. dino? Who cares? With FAR syn oil and the near parity of dino and syn costs, it's irrelevant.
Looks NICE!! What kind`ve car/oil/filter?
Originally Posted By: Hootbro
Who buys their oil at Wal-Mart and then goes to Autozone and buys a filter?
I do because Autozone has the real ACDelco filter. Walmart has the e-core.
You're getting soft Hootbro, of all the things you could've criticized me for, you chose the filter purchase.
Who buys their oil at Wal-Mart and then goes to Autozone and buys a filter?
I do because Autozone has the real ACDelco filter. Walmart has the e-core.
You're getting soft Hootbro, of all the things you could've criticized me for, you chose the filter purchase.
- Status
Similar threads
